The word "high" in the phrase "high crimes" refers to the office and not the offense, and the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute.

There are allegations that (1) President Trump, acting in his official capacity, pressured Volodymyr Zelenskyy (President of Ukraine) to launch an official investigation of Hunter Biden's activities in Ukraine and (2) Trump's intent was to help his own re-election campaign, not to advance the interests of the United States. If these allegations are true, would you consider Trump's conduct a high crime (or a high misdemeanor)?

If Trump were to be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, would another Republican presidential candidate have a better chance of winning in 2020 than Trump would if he were not removed from office? Who do you think would be the Republican candidate best able to win the 2020 election if Trump is removed from office?

I believe Trump did it, that it was an impeachable offense, and that he should be impeached.

However, I don't think it's likely he will with how our system is set up. The House can bring him up on impeachment charges, but the Senate gets to ultimately decide. Since the Senate is majority Republican, I doubt they will do anything. They have been supportive and/or complacent with Trump's actions so far, why change now?

>would another Republican presidential candidate have a better chance of winning in 2020

>>2663> They have been supportive and/or complacent with Trump's actions so far, why change now?If it looks like Trump will lose the 2020 election, it might make sense to remove him and install a new Republican who would have a better chance of winning in 2020.

>>2664He's been consistently popular with those who like him and unpopular with those who don't. So his chances of winning this time are equal to last time, if you don't believe that Russia interfered with our election.

I do, but I also know there are people who genuinely like Trump's anti-immigration policies and ignore/deny his his racially-charged rhetoric.

>>2662>"high crimes" refers to the office and not the offenseDidn't know that.

>would you considerDoesn't sound out of character for POTUS. If someone can show me this is a glaring outlier, maybe I'll say yes.

>would another Republican presidential candidate have a better chance of winning in 2020Well, you can first put people into two groups. Absolutely Pro-Trump and Anti-Trump. I think you can expect them to follow their parties, though. Replacing Trump won't matter as long as the replacement is similar.

>>2665>He's been consistently popular with those who like him and unpopular with those who don't. So his chances of winning this time are equal to last time,

Within the strong Pro and Anti groups, I think, that's true. I've not heard of anyone moving from one to another.

What matters, and I suppose what usually matters, are the folks in the middle. In the last election it was pretty well assumed Trump would "strut and fret his hour upon the stage," then fade back into real estate. That assumption is no longer there, and that may change the outcome.

>If Trump were to be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, would another Republican presidential candidate have a better chance of winning in 2020 than Trump would if he were not removed from office?Definitely not. I don't know what would happen, but, I think the people who put Trump in office in the first place would be beyond pissed. That'd make it pretty up in the air, as far as who'd get the seat, but, I don't think any typical mainstream candidate'd see it.

>>2682>given it's essentially ascribing motive onto someone.In this case, isn't the motive pretty clear? Trump was trying to find dirt on a candidate running against him. I don't see any other motive that could explain his behavior.

This website seems to show over the last two years states with a positive view of Trump have become more indifferent, indifferent or negative states, more negative. I don't see any states where approval went up.

Now, this won't directly relate to election results, since choice depends on Trump's opponent gaining relatively more approval; some see politics as a choice of the lesser evil, but opinions seem a bit variable.

>>2684>I don't think anyone is still on the fence in this matter.Well, I was, until just yesterday when I closely looked into the matter. This Zelenskyy incident was the final straw that finally really soured me on Trump. If I were in the Senate and Trump were impeached by the House, I would vote to convict him.

>>2662> If these allegations are true, would you consider Trump's conduct a high crime (or a high misdemeanor)?

I would say so, yes. Assuming the allegations are true, like you said.

>If Trump were to be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, would another Republican presidential candidate have a better chance of winning in 2020 than Trump would if he were not removed from office?

In 2020? I'm not sure. As bad as Trump is, I don't think removing him necessarily removes his voter base, which might not vote out of spite, or might just vote for someone seeking to emulate Trump.

>Who do you think would be the Republican candidate best able to win the 2020 election if Trump is removed from office?

I'd suggest Bill Weld, someone who's been publically against Trump from the very beginning. Trump's impeachment would let him leverage how right he was about Trump being bad news, and a lot of his more moderate policies would appeal to centrists, or even people who might normally vote Democrat.

This all depends very much on who the Democrats nominate, though. I think Joe Biden has a poor chance of rallying the full strength of the left to support his cause. Without fear of Trump pushing them forward, people are unlikely to accept Biden. If the Democrats nominate Bernie, or perhaps Warren or Yang, then they're more likely to obtain support from the far left voters.

I forgot to add to that second statement: While winning in 2020 might be difficult due to a divided Republican party, Trump's removal could mark a restorative period for the party to realign its values. Politicians would have to be very careful about being compared to a president that just got impeached, so moving forward in 2024+ the Republican party might have a better chance.

>>2702>>2702>But Trump aligns with their values already. If he didn't, they wouldn't have endorsed him, enabled him and defended him.Oh, if only that were true! In modern US politics, considerations of values and principles unfortunately often take a backseat to realpolitik.

>>2714Well, ignoring your morals or ideology in favor of victory is in and of itself a moral choice. You are favoring victory and personal gain. If this is the moral standing of the Republican party, that still says something about them.

>>2725> If this is the moral standing of the Republican party, that still says something about them.It does. And it applies to the Democratic Party as well. You know what they say about legislature and sausage.

Then again, I suppose a big part of it is that this stuff looks incredibly dirty on Biden's part, anyway. If nothing else, it's a clear conflict of interest. Though of course as always is the case, unfortunately, it only seems to really matter if it's Trump.

>>2702I don't see any clearly-evident actual racism from Trump. Whereas this Zelenskyy incident is a classic conflict-of-interest: Trump acts in his official capacity to further his own personal interest at the expense of the interests of the United States. I have to take conflict-of-interest training annually, and Trump's situation is a textbook example of this kind of shit. His guilt is clear as day.

>>2822To me the evidence of racism was undeniable, so to be on the fence about Trump seemed pretty silly. But I doubt I could convince you of it because much of the evidence toward his racism is not directly stated and therefor easier for skeptics to dismiss. Racism is usually considered bad by most of society, so most people are going to deny they are racists. The most dangerous racists aren't the ones in Klan hoods, they're the ones in Senate seats.

But I agree with you that the evidence of Trump committing this act is pretty clear-cut.

>>2822Would you also consider it a conflict of interest for Biden to pressure Ukraine to boot out the prosecutor involved in a case who was investigating a company where his son was recently placed on the board making 50k$ a month?

>>2662> If these allegations are true, would you consider Trump's conduct a high crime (or a high misdemeanor)?Neither, as Hunter Biden is not an elected official of the United States who is somehow immune or otherwise exempt from investigation, especially as a corrupt lobbyist/executive in a notably corrupt foreign country. This is assuming the allegations are true, specifically with regard to the intent, but as this cannot be proven, I see no basis for impeachment. This would be especially difficult to prove because Hunter Biden himself has no real impact on Trump's reelection. However, Joe Biden's alleged corruption likely will have an impact on Trump's reelection, by hurting his own campaign and further discrediting the Democrats, regardless of what happens to Hunter. Biden using his influence to allegedly get his son off the hook through political means is the only real problem here as far as I am concerned. Thus Joe Biden's actions will effect the elections regardless of what Trump pressures Ukraine to do.

>If Trump were to be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, would another Republican presidential candidate have a better chance of winning in 2020 than Trump would if he were not removed from office?Uncertain.

>Who do you think would be the Republican candidate best able to win the 2020 election if Trump is removed from office?Pence by default, because by that point it would be too late to hold a primary.

>>2828>Hunter Biden is not an elected official of the United States who is somehow immune or otherwise exempt from investigation

This was not an official investigation done through the proper law-enforcement channels. This was Trump threatening to withhold foreign aid to another country unless they gave him leverage on a political oppenent. It's not that Biden was being investigate. It's the how and why.

>If these allegations are true, would you consider Trump's conduct a high crime (or a high misdemeanor)?

There appears to be a case against him.

>If Trump were to be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, would another Republican presidential candidate have a better chance of winning in 2020 than Trump would if he were not removed from office?

Whether Trump or Pence runs, it would be about the same.

>Who do you think would be the Republican candidate best able to win the 2020 election if Trump is removed from office?

Pence, since no one else will have time to campaign.

There is a decent chance he will be removed from office if a secret vote is held in the Senate - which is an option by simple majority vote.

>>2831>This was not an official investigation done through the proper law-enforcement channels.Well, yeah, after the previous guy got shitcanned thanks to Biden.>This was Trump threatening to withhold foreign aid to another country unless they gave him leverage on a political oppenent.Let's assume that's true. Withholding foreign aid for diplomatic reasons isn't exactly an unusual occurrence.Also, more importantly, Hunter Biden is not a political opponent.And, most importantly, there was no quid pro quo in the transcript, making this notion completely irrelevant.>It's not that Biden was being investigate. It's the how and why.Insisting that a planned investigation actually be carried out isn't all that unusual. This is really no different from the insistence that a special prosecutor be assigned in the Juicy Smoliet case, after Juicy was acquitted through bizarre means thanks to a colossal conflict of interest.

>We have transcripts of the phone calls. You can read it right now.Have you read it?

>>2847The reasoning in >>2835 (>Insisting that a planned investigation actually be carried out isn't all that unusual. This is really no different from the insistence that a special prosecutor be assigned in the [Jussie Smollett] case, after [Jussie] was acquitted through bizarre means thanks to a colossal conflict of interest.) seems pretty clear to me. Can you be more specific in regards to where you are getting stuck?

>>2852I'm pretty sure it is argue that Trump's request for investigation of Hunter Biden is not improper, by citing an allegedly similar case where a call for further investigation and/or prosecution would allegedly be proper.

>>2858I don't think they are sufficiently similar either. But their similarity is a premise of the argument in Tender Narwhal's post >>2835. Does the argument make sense to you, even if you don't agree with the premises?

>>2835>And, most importantly, there was no quid pro quo in the transcript, making this notion completely irrelevant.I don't think a smoking gun is required. In the company that I work for, if I was involved in vendor selection, and if I got caught even vaguely suggesting that a potential vendor do me a personal favor, I'm sure I'd be disciplined and most likely fired.

>>2871Jussie Smollett created a hoax to try and get attention. And he was pretty quickly found out and exposed. So I'm not sure what that situation has to do with what we are discussing. It wasn't even a political situation.

>>3816I'm not aware of any call to further investigate Jussie Smollett. I was under the impression that it was an open and shut case. He created a hoax and was almost immediately found out.

As for Trump investigating Biden, I think the issue here is that Trump did not go through the proper channels and organizations to investigate it. Instead he tried to pressure another nation into giving him information he could use against a political opponent.